Why are Christians always the ones getting the bad rap for being selective in

[Daisy]

We are very selective in what our children are allowed to read, watch, and listen to.

 

I'm shocked when I hear of the lengths people will go to in order to avoid a book (i.e. the Harry Potter landlord thread). There is a big difference between feeling a book is inappropriate for your family and being afraid to be near it.

 

When I hear things like the above example I don't think of selectivity or even an act of being judgemental. It sounds like an unrealistic fear based in a doctrinal misunderstanding. While we may feel a book contains bad or even evil content, we have nothing to fear from its mere presence. That makes me sad for them because we don't have to be afraid of it. We are just living deliberately and choosing to avoid things that don't align with our beliefs.

 

But again, I see that as completely separate from a parent who wisely censors what their children are exposed to.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Just to use the examples you give in your first post, while I totally agree that most non-Christian (or moderate/liberal Christian) parents wouldn't choose the books you mention, I don't know that they'd ban their children from reading them with the same vehemence I see HP sometimes denounced with.

I absolutely think they would.:001_huh:

[Nestof3]

And if I knew another child of our acquaintance was reading books I considered unacceptable, I'd quietly discuss it with my child after the other kiddo went home. We'd talk about how different families have different standards and that, since we value our right to make decisions for our family, we HAVE TO respect the rights of other families to do the same. I can't imagine ever speaking directly to the other child about it and attempting to impose my beliefs. If I thought, for some reason I honestly cannot imagine, that the other child was talking about it too much and confusing or upsetting my child (which also probably wouldn't happen), the most I might ever do is matter-of-factly ask the second child to talk about something else for a while.

 

 

 

 

This is how I would handle it as well.

[susankenny]

Just to use the examples you give in your first post, while I totally agree that most non-Christian (or moderate/liberal Christian) parents wouldn't choose the books you mention, I don't know that they'd ban their children from reading them with the same vehemence I see HP sometimes denounced with.

 

Yes, but I have read many posts where non Christians do ban books because they think they are "fluff" or "crap", and really, isn't the bottom line the same mindset and reasoning. I don't mean in the religious sense - but more-so in censoring what the parent feels is best for their family.

 

 

Susan

[Jenny in Florida]

There have been activities we had to refuse and instead of just accepting that, people feel it's their place to make us feel weird. They try to convince us that other Christians have no problem with it, etc. etc.

 

That is just going to happen.

 

I can relate to this.

 

We're ethical vegans. Can you imagine how much fun it is to never be able to share a meal with others without explaining your stance? It is extremely rare to find anyone hearing about this for the first time who does not immediately get defensive or try to argue with us about the validity of our choices.

 

And it's not just others of our religion. It's everyone, everywhere. I've literally had this conversation with waiters, grocery store clerks, etc.

 

Most of the time, I try to be pleasant and act as an ambassador for our values. But it does get awfully tiresome.

 

Again, though, this is MY belief, and I take responsibility for living it and don't expect other people to go out of their way to make it easier for me.

[Nestof3]

We are very selective in what our children are allowed to read, watch, and listen to.

 

I'm shocked when I hear of the lengths people will go to in order to avoid a book (i.e. the Harry Potter landlord thread). There is a big difference between feeling a book is inappropriate for your family and being afraid to be near it.

 

 

 

But it really isn't shocking behavior if you realize that some people believe evil things invite evil spirits, right? It all comes down to respecting their belief -- their understanding of their religion.

[swimmermom3]

I don't agree with changing the plot, but I have no problem with children's retellings that leave out certain age-inappropriate aspects. My kids can read the originals in high school or college to find out everything that happened in the story. But when they're little, they are fine just knowing some of the plot. We simplify things for kids all the time- why should literature be any different than any other subject?

 

Agreed. I am fine with children's retellings. We use them all the time for the youngest. But even Geraldine McCaughrean's versions of the Canterbury Tales, A Thousand and One Arabian Nights, and Gilgamesh, while more appropriate for a younger audience, are not completely "sanitized." For example, it is difficult to explain the significance of the 1001 nights if you don't know that a new wife died every night in response to grief over the betrayal of the first wife. It would be difficult to avoid the topics of infidelity and murder and keep the integrity of the original work alive. I have seen requests on this board for versions of classics that come mighty close to rewriting the original book.

[LG Gone Wild]

People have really asked for that? I'm speechless. What they are asking for is a story of someone else. You can't have Arthur without the sorcery, the infidelity, the incest, the battles, etc...

 

:iagree: I wonder if they have ever read the bible. :tongue_smilie:

[Nestof3]

Some people haven't been exposed to the idea that such children's fiction is so horribly offensive to others and that other people actually believe that it promotes witchcraft and gives actual recipes and potions to readers. That is pretty shocking to people when they find out. It's just bizarre and absurd really, to the people who have actually read the books. Why do you feel it's a negative thing for someone to post that they are surprised about something? Do you feel like your are being baited with such questions comments or is it something else? I'm seriously asking, not being snarky or anything.

 

This topic has come up in numerous posts on this forum, so I am surprised if anyone but newer people haven't seen it. I may be wrong.

 

I don't presume to know about others' religions, and there are many denominations of Christians and much variety within (I'm sure this is true for many religions). But, if I saw a person doing something that seemed tied to their religion, I would probably assume the person knew why they were doing it. That really is enough.

[twoforjoy]

But it really isn't shocking behavior if you realize that some people believe evil things invite evil spirits, right? It all comes down to respecting their belief -- their understanding of their religion.

 

I think the issue, though, is that other people don't share that belief, which is what makes it different.

 

I might not go out of my way to pick one of the kids' Left Behind books for my children to read, but I don't think the books are actually demonic or could actually harm my child in some supernatural way; I just think they're 1) bad theology and 2) bad literature. And that leads me to think that a parent who believes that HP is actually evil and could actually invite evil spirits into their child's life is probably going to be a lot more adamant about their child not reading HP than I'd be about my children reading Left Behind (which is something I wouldn't encourage them to read, but if they were interested, I'd let them and we'd discuss it).

[Nestof3]

:iagree: I wonder if they have ever read the bible. :tongue_smilie:

 

And yet, we can still be selective in the way we tell stories or the way we explain things until we feel it is age-appropriate. I don't want to explain incest, rape and such to my nine year old. I'd like him to just be a kid a little longer.

[Nestof3]

Exactly, but isn't that because you don't believe in evil spirits? Do you believe in demons? Do you believe in Satan?

 

That is the difference. I don't understand Hinduism (yes, I learned some about it in my Religion and Culture in India course in college). But, people do. And, people even believe it. ;)

 

I think the issue, though, is that other people don't share that belief, which is what makes it different.

 

I might not go out of my way to pick one of the kids' Left Behind books for my children to read, but I don't think the books are actually demonic or could actually harm my child in some supernatural way; I just think they're 1) bad theology and 2) bad literature. And that leads me to think that a parent who believes that HP is actually evil and could actually invite evil spirits into their child's life is probably going to be a lot more adamant about their child not reading HP than I'd be about my children reading Left Behind (which is something I wouldn't encourage them to read, but if they were interested, I'd let them and we'd discuss it).

[Jenny in Florida]

I haven't read these other threads, but some people think that dangerous spirit creatures are attracted to certain objects like movies or books and having the movie or book on premises would actually scare them. It is not an action of judgment or being offended so much as an action motivated by superstition or fear.

 

Got it.

 

I find the very idea of eating meet both disgusting and upsetting. But I recognize I'm in the minority on that one and would never expect to change a public environment to suit my beliefs.

[Daisy]

But it really isn't shocking behavior if you realize that some people believe evil things invite evil spirits, right? It all comes down to respecting their belief -- their understanding of their religion.

 

Being shocked isn't a value statement. It just means intense surprise.

 

Does registering shock equal disrespect?

Edited April 29, 2011 by Daisy

[Leav97]

Well, if a fellow Christian told me that she won't read a certain book because of her convictions, that's one thing, but if she says "Christians shouldn't read this certain book", that's entirely another thing. Kwim?

 

:iagree:

 

It's also completely different when someone decides a book doesn't meet their standards and then tries to have it banned from the library and schools.

[Jenny in Florida]

I absolutely think they would.:001_huh:

 

I wouldn't and haven't. Ever.

[Nestof3]

This is a very good point and I think it gets to the heart of the matter. In fact, my first impression in reading Dawn's post was that her wording subtly set her apart from the vile nonbelievers who aren't looking for the light, but are wallowing in darkness through their literary choices. Typically this stance makes me want to come out fighting, but I've read enough of Dawn's posts to know she probably didn't mean it to sound as harsh as it did or that she is truly tired of being judged. We are all tired of being judged.

 

 

 

Clearly, I am not good with words if that was your first impression. :lol: I'm glad you know me better than to believe that.

[Audrey]

Yes, people have different standards, but it is erroneous to say that only Christians get picky about their reading. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians are NOT the kind that get legalistic about what to read or not read. I think your rant is based on your own insular view of the Christianity that YOU and YOUR surrounding acquaintances practice. Even when I was a Christian (and a very active on in the community) I RARELY encountered legalistic or ultra-conservative ones.

 

Also, I don't think people are so much shocked that others censor reading based on faith issues, but I think they are more than a bit perturbed when those who do censor for faith reasons feel the urge to lecture them on why they shouldn't read such and such either and how reading such materials will be a sure road to ****ation for them and their children. I believe THAT is what people are responding to when they say "I can't believe so-and-so doesn't read xyz."

 

Personally, I don't care what a person reads or allows to be read in their home. In turn, I'd prefer that they don't care what I read or allow in my home either, or if they do care so much, at least have the courtesy to keep that to themselves.

[Nestof3]

Being shocked isn't a value statement. It just means intense surprise.

 

Does registering shock equal disrespect?

 

No, I mean this meaning of respect:

 

to refrain from interfering with <please respect their privacy>

[mommymilkies]

Dawn, if you tell me you can't read Malory's Morte d' Arthur because of your Christian values, I can respect that as long as you don't call me "evil" or "immoral" because I do read it. What I cannot respect in any shape or form is the Christian who asks for a "sanitized" version of a classic. You know, you have seen the requests on this board for an Arthur where Guinevere remains a good, faithful Christian wife, Lancelot falls into a hole in the ground and the knights never really kill anyone, except in the name of God. The goal is to stick to a moral high ground and yet be able to tell everyone that yes, you have read King Arthur. The whole thing lacks integrity. Just don't read the book.

:iagree: Read whatever you like, but if you start saying rude things to me about my choices or start going crazy (not "you", but in general) about how people who read xyz are amoral Satan worshippers and you make false accusations about a book, I sure will speak up.

[twoforjoy]

Exactly, but isn't that because you don't believe in evil spirits? Do you believe in demons? Do you believe in Satan?

 

It's because I don't think literature is a vehicle for the demonic.

 

I don't think anybody is saying that parents *shouldn't* ban their kids from reading HP if they do indeed believe that demonic spirits could enter their child's life because of the book. I think the issue is more about being surprised that anybody thinks that, and being upset when the person questions their parenting choices because they do let their child read the books. I don't think anybody has suggested sneaking their children a copy of HP against the parent's wishes. I guess I don't see any actual disrespect of people's beliefs, just surprise at them (and disagreement with them).

 

Our standards for our family are our standards. I can't imagine a circumstance in which I'd get into a discussion of what my children are or are not allowed to read/watch/listen to unless specifically asked in a setting where it seemed appropriate to answer. I just don't see it as something that is other people's business or that I need to make other people's business.

 

But if somebody was aware of things that we don't consider appropriate, and took issue with that, that's fine. I wouldn't feel like my beliefs weren't being respected. If they were to sneak my child a book or CD or DVD that they knew I didn't want them watching, that's when I'd feel like they were being disrespectful of what I believe and of my standards. Or, if they were to question my child about what I did allow them to watch or listen to or read, I'd also feel that was disrespect. I wouldn't take disagreement with my standards or criticism of it as being disrespectful of my beliefs, though, as long as my right to make those decisions for my children was being respected.

[Nestof3]

Yes, people have different standards, but it is erroneous to say that only Christians get picky about their reading. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians are NOT the kind that get legalistic about what to read or not read. I think your rant is based on your own insular view of the Christianity that YOU and YOUR surrounding acquaintances practice. Even when I was a Christian (and a very active on in the community) I RARELY encountered legalistic or ultra-conservative ones.

 

 

I admit I really cringe when I hear people describe peoples' quest walk in a manner worthy of His calling as legalistic. Legalism is about trying to fulfill law. It might surprise you to know that people I know do it because they actually want to be pleasing to God. There really is a difference.

 

scripture often exhorts to:

 

dwell on things that are true, noble, good, etc.

 

set no evil thing before one's eyes

 

avoid what is unclean

 

I mean, really, if one reads the Bible, there are plenty of exhortations about these things. I agree that people interpret and apply them differently. Just because the majority of Christians do not go as far in what they limit as other

Christians doesn't mean they are any more right.

[Audrey]

I mean, really, if one reads the Bible, there are plenty of exhortations about these things. I agree that people interpret and apply them differently. Just because the majority of Christians do not go as far in what they limit as other

Christians doesn't mean they are any more right.

 

 

True, but my point was that you seem to be seeing a broad display of "shock" while seeming to assume (by the manner in which you stated your OP) that your view is the majority one or possibly the single right one.

 

I am positing that, in fact, your view is a minority one, and the reaction of others to that kind of --- strictness in interpretation of the Bible (since you've disallowed me use of the term legalistic) -- is a reaction to something quite unusual in the majorityof people's experiences.

[Princess Peach]

I admit I really cringe when I hear people describe peoples' quest walk in a manner worthy of His calling as legalistic. Legalism is about trying to fulfill law. It might surprise you to know that people I know do it because they actually want to be pleasing to God. There really is a difference.

 

scripture often exhorts to:

 

dwell on things that are true, noble, good, etc.

 

set no evil thing before one's eyes

 

avoid what is unclean

 

I mean, really, if one reads the Bible, there are plenty of exhortations about these things. I agree that people interpret and apply them differently. Just because the majority of Christians do not go as far in what they limit as other

Christians doesn't mean they are any more right.

 

I humbly disagree with your definition of legalism. Since I used the term in my original post, I want to clarify what I mean when I use that term.

 

Jesus came to fulfill the law. I do not see that as a definition of legalist and I don't see Jesus as legalistic. The Pharisees were legalistic. They were trying to do all sorts of things to look good on the outside and they were always trying to catch Jesus doing something unlawful.

 

This link sums up what I think legalism is better than I ever could.

[Jenny in Florida]

scripture often exhorts to:

 

dwell on things that are true, noble, good, etc.

 

set no evil thing before one's eyes

 

avoid what is unclean

 

I mean, really, if one reads the Bible, there are plenty of exhortations about these things. I agree that people interpret and apply them differently. Just because the majority of Christians do not go as far in what they limit as other

Christians doesn't mean they are any more right.

 

Those statements just leave so much open to personal intepretation, though.

 

I mean, I'm not even Christian and I try to do most of those things. It's just that my idea of "true, noble, good" as well as "evil" or "unclean" would likely be pretty different from yours.

 

I agree, though, that the majority isn't right just because there are more of them. If I believed that, I'd be a meat-eating Christian whose kids played Little League instead of singing opera.

[Word Nerd]

Where are the threads that start, "I cannot believe people read Harry Potter, manga, etc?"

 

 

I can only speak for myself, but I've read exactly those kinds of posts many times over the last decade, especially on homeschooling forums (though granted, not on this one, though I recall one HP thread getting rather heated).

[jewellsmommy]

:iagree: Read whatever you like, but if you start saying rude things to me about my choices or start going crazy (not "you", but in general) about how people who read xyz are amoral Satan worshippers and you make false accusations about a book, I sure will speak up.

 

 

I agree. I think the problem comes in with the bolded part. False, being in the eyes of the beholder. I would consider us to be somewhat picky, but we read stuff that others won't allow.

 

This discussion brings up memories of the "evil history books" kerfuffle, though. I think that discussion shows that we all have different standards, christian or not, and our judgements of appropriateness spill over to others sometimes and hurt feelings result.

[swimmermom3]

True, but my point was that you seem to be seeing a broad display of "shock" while seeming to assume (by the manner in which you stated your OP) that your view is the majority one or possibly the single right one.

 

I am positing that, in fact, your view is a minority one, and the reaction of others to that kind of --- strictness in interpretation of the Bible (since you've disallowed me use of the term legalistic) -- is a reaction to something quite unusual in the majorityof people's experiences.

 

Audrey, I think in the part that you bolded on Dawn's quote, she was saying the same thing that you say above in that many Christians don't go as far in censoring their books as Dawn might. She doesn't think that because they are the majority, their practices are any more "correct."

She doesn't want to be mocked or hassled because she goes farther. I don't think she feels she is in the majority.

 

I truly get that. (If I have translated correctly.:tongue_smilie:) Dawn, I think, unfortunately for you, you are always going to get a certain element of surprise and unpleasantness, in part because fundamental Christians are predominantly the most vocal book censors and banners in our culture. They strike fear in the hearts of those of us who genuinely love our books and value our freedom to choose them. We had a thread on this board where more than one member admitted to hiding "objectionable" books in other parts of the library or checking them out and never returning them.

 

Also, Secular mom's point about some people being really surprised at selectivity in reading materials is valid. I grew up in a background and place that left me completely unprepared for many of the more conservative viewpoints on this board. I spent the first year reading posts to my dh and exclaiming, "What!" Dh seldom bats an eye because he grew up in a missionary family with roots in the South. It took me a long time to wrap my mind around some of the viewpoints expressed. It's been good for me.;)

[twoforjoy]

Also, Secular mom's point about some people being really surprised at selectivity in reading materials is valid. I grew up in a background and place that left me completely unprepared for many of the more conservative viewpoints on this board. I spent the first year reading posts to my dh and exclaiming, "What!" Dh seldom bats an eye because he grew up in a missionary family with roots in the South. It took me a long time to wrap my mind around some of the viewpoints expressed. It's been good for me.;)

 

I was in my 20s before I knew that anybody believed in young-earth creationism (or had even heard that term) or that Catholics weren't Christians or believed in the Rapture (another term I'd never heard of). And, I didn't grow up in some atheist hippie commune. ;) I grew up in a community filled with practicing Catholics, mainline Protestants, and observant Jews. There just wasn't a significant fundamentalist/conservative evangelical presence, though, so there was a LOT that surprised me when I started homeschooling and interacting with homeschoolers online!

[swimmermom3]

I was in my 20s before I knew that anybody believed in young-earth creationism (or had even heard that term) or that Catholics weren't Christians or believed in the Rapture (another term I'd never heard of). And, I didn't grow up in some atheist hippie commune. ;) I grew up in a community filled with practicing Catholics, mainline Protestants, and observant Jews. There just wasn't a significant fundamentalist/conservative evangelical presence, though, so there was a LOT that surprised me when I started homeschooling and interacting with homeschoolers online!

 

Yes! This would be my experience all the way.

[Audrey]

I was in my 20s before I knew that anybody believed in young-earth creationism (or had even heard that term) or that Catholics weren't Christians or believed in the Rapture (another term I'd never heard of). And, I didn't grow up in some atheist hippie commune. ;) I grew up in a community filled with practicing Catholics, mainline Protestants, and observant Jews. There just wasn't a significant fundamentalist/conservative evangelical presence, though, so there was a LOT that surprised me when I started homeschooling and interacting with homeschoolers online!

 

 

My experience as well. The things you mentioned had me :001_huh: the first time I heard of them. They might as well have told me they believed in the physical incarnation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's how completely alien those ideas are to my experience in Christendom.

[indigomama]

People have really asked for that? I'm speechless. What they are asking for is a story of someone else. You can't have Arthur without the sorcery, the infidelity, the incest, the battles, etc...

 

Actually, I read a great story about Arthur that didn't have sorcery or incest. I was in Junior High or High School and now I can't remember the title or author. Merlin, was not a wizard but more of a genius. He could master languages and all kinds of other things and he let people assume he was using magic when he was really just outsmarting them. It was really good.

[PineFarmMom]

what they read?

 

 

I can think of all sorts of books many non-Christians would probably not read. I wonder, for example, how many non-Christians sit around reading this:

 

 

Haven't we all figured out by now that people have different standards? It seems people are still shocked by this.

 

Yes, people, Christians can be weird. We will very often be very different than what you are used to. We are a peculiar people, and many of us worry about things like lightness and darkness. Many of us aim to figure out what it means to walk in a manner worthy of His calling. If you really want to understand why we are the way we are, just read the New Testament -- the whole thing. It's not really that long.

 

Please tell me what other religions focus on this. Please tell me what other religions insist that there is only one way, one truth, and one life. Perhaps if you understand that, you will understand Christians more.

 

 

:thumbup::hurray::hurray::hurray::iagree:

 

Thank you for this!! Awesome post!!! It's only wrong to choose certain books and avoid other books if Christians do it. Otherwise, it is wise and the correct thing to do. Double standards are fun, aren't they?? :lol:

[Nestof3]

Audrey, how did I imply that my view was the majority or the only right in my OP?

 

(And, FWIW, my son has read all of the HP books and seen all of the movies).

 

Harry Potter has come up SO MANY TIMES that I cannot believe it's still a source of shock to anyone.

 

True, but my point was that you seem to be seeing a broad display of "shock" while seeming to assume (by the manner in which you stated your OP) that your view is the majority one or possibly the single right one.

 

I am positing that, in fact, your view is a minority one, and the reaction of others to that kind of --- strictness in interpretation of the Bible (since you've disallowed me use of the term legalistic) -- is a reaction to something quite unusual in the majorityof people's experiences.

[dangermom]

I was in my 20s before I knew that anybody believed in young-earth creationism (or had even heard that term) or that Catholics weren't Christians or believed in the Rapture (another term I'd never heard of). And, I didn't grow up in some atheist hippie commune. ;) I grew up in a community filled with practicing Catholics, mainline Protestants, and observant Jews. There just wasn't a significant fundamentalist/conservative evangelical presence, though, so there was a LOT that surprised me when I started homeschooling and interacting with homeschoolers online!

I was 25 and in library school and had to ask someone about the meaning of the Rapture bumpersticker I'd seen. That was when LB was just getting big. I wound up doing a thesis paper on YA Christian fiction--boy was that an education.

 

I'd agree that a lot of it is the threat of banning. I can't stand that.

[Nestof3]

Okay, I think your definition is fine, but my point is that it is about motives.

 

The Pharisees had a motive of trying to check off boxed much not really changing from the inside. There was nothing wrong with them following the law -- even Jesus did that. The thing that angered Jesus was that they hadn't allowed their hearts to change.

 

Calling someone legalistic is a judgment call on motives.

 

I humbly disagree with your definition of legalism. Since I used the term in my original post, I want to clarify what I mean when I use that term.

 

Jesus came to fulfill the law. I do not see that as a definition of legalist and I don't see Jesus as legalistic. The Pharisees were legalistic. They were trying to do all sorts of things to look good on the outside and they were always trying to catch Jesus doing something unlawful.

 

This link sums up what I think legalism is better than I ever could.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think that there have been a couple of threads related to objections that some folks had with historical fiction that is quite popular in some homeschooling circles.

 

On other homeschool boards, I've seen post after post objecting to rather minor (imho) comments and scenes. I remember hearing a dear friend explain how another couple at our church had complained to the pastoral staff that my friend and her dh were "unfit" to be leading the youth ministry because they were reading Harry Potter aloud to their own kids at home (not promoting it in the youth group). [And for context, this was a middle aged couple who had stepped into the gap when the former youth pastor was found having relations with one of the teen girls in the youth group.]

 

I am a Christian. I have swung between being more and less restrictive in how that was put into practice. There were many years when our family did not participate in Halloween, for example. We don't draw the line in all the same places that we did a decade ago.

 

I don't personally care much if a non-Christian doesn't like the books our family reads. No more than I care if a non-Christian is offended that I don't veil, for example.

 

But I am going to object when a Christian proclaims that I am a deficient Christian over what I think are minor details of practice - not issues of salvation.

 

I try not to put a stumbling block in the way of other Christians. But I don't think that they should have veto power over my library.

 

I think there is a general human tendency to be confident that the conclusions one has drawn are the conclusions that any right thinking person would come to. I have seen it in many fields, not just children's fiction. I also think that we tend to bristle when we are called out (either for "wrong" practice or for being "too critical") but not notice when others are being called out.

[secular_mom]

:iagree:

 

Thank you for this!! Awesome post!!! It's only wrong to choose certain books and avoid other books if Christians do it. Otherwise, it is wise and the correct thing to do. Double standards are fun, aren't they??

:confused: Who is saying that you are wrong to be selective in choosing the books you read and allow your children to read?

[MelanieM]

I have been shocked by lots of things about the Christianity that some people practice since reading on these forums. I was raised a Christian, but had no clue that there were Christians that believed in a young earth, thought yoga put you at spiritual risk, or believed reading Harry Potter could land you in hell. So yeah, I get surprised regularly. That doesn't mean I'm not respectful of people and their right to believe whatever they want to believe. As long as no one thinks they should be able to force me to believe/act on those beliefs as well, I'm good!

Actually, I read a great story about Arthur that didn't have sorcery or incest. I was in Junior High or High School and now I can't remember the title or author. Merlin, was not a wizard but more of a genius. He could master languages and all kinds of other things and he let people assume he was using magic when he was really just outsmarting them. It was really good.

 

 

Was it Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy?

[Nestof3]

Those statements just leave so much open to personal intepretation, though.

 

I mean, I'm not even Christian and I try to do most of those things. It's just that my idea of "true, noble, good" as well as "evil" or "unclean" would likely be pretty different from yours.

 

I agree, though, that the majority isn't right just because there are more of them. If I believed that, I'd be a meat-eating Christian whose kids played Little League instead of singing opera.

:iagree:

 

That's part of my whole point -- Christians run the spectrum (as do people of other faiths).

 

It seems those of us who have been on the boards a while know that.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, people, Christians can be weird. We will very often be very different than what you are used to. We are a peculiar people, and many of us worry about things like lightness and darkness. Many of us aim to figure out what it means to walk in a manner worthy of His calling. If you really want to understand why we are the way we are, just read the New Testament -- the whole thing. It's not really that long.

 

Please tell me what other religions focus on this. Please tell me what other religions insist that there is only one way, one truth, and one life. Perhaps if you understand that, you will understand Christians more.

 

The bad rap some Christians get is from in any way implying that if you read Harry Potter or Sword and the Stone then you aren't interested in things like light and darkness or walking in a manner that is worthy of His calling.

 

eta: I'm not saying that is what you were doing. But, it is what a lot people do.

[PineFarmMom]

:confused: Who is saying that you are wrong to be selective in choosing the books you read and allow your children to read?

 

Really???? I've seen that thread of thinking all over this board. At times it is just in the sense of making fun of those who choose in that way. I only see selectiveness applauded when it is for non-Christian reasons.

[Lovedtodeath]

Really???? I've seen that thread of thinking all over this board. At times it is just in the sense of making fun of those who choose in that way. I only see selectiveness applauded when it is for non-Christian reasons.

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

Really???? I've seen that thread of thinking all over this board. At times it is just in the sense of making fun of those who choose in that way. I only see selectiveness applauded when it is for non-Christian reasons.

 

I totally disagree.

 

For example, the post about the family who supposedly handed a HP book back to their landlord and left early.

 

That has *nothing* to do with being selective about what their children read and everything to do with some sort of nutty actions on their part. If you don't like a book you found in a cabinet, stash it away until you leave.

[secular_mom]

Really???? I've seen that thread of thinking all over this board. At times it is just in the sense of making fun of those who choose in that way. I only see selectiveness applauded when it is for non-Christian reasons.

I guess I haven't read the same posts you have then. I often open a thread and read the first few posts and don't open it again so I must have missed it.

[MelanieM]

I only see selectiveness applauded when it is for non-Christian reasons.

 

Oh, I don't know about that. I've seen lots of things applauded that have been decidedly Christian. Perhaps you only notice the other threads that are in conflict with your beliefs, just as I (as a non-Christian) would notice the ones that are not necessarily in alignment with mine?

[Ester Maria]

Frankly, I believe that all of us have our "red lines" as to what is accepted in our homes and our minds - and having certain filters and criteria for those is, in my view, fine. Especially if it is a result of experience rather than prejudice, and home spirit preference rather than an obsessive attempt to micromanage our children's reality and shelter them from any scary outside influences.

 

The problem arises, thus, when somebody's "red lines" are drawn so narrowly around their own world that they basically exclude everything outside of it, every possibility of a different experience and different thought. I find it quite difficult to seriously communicate with people who have "encapsulated" themselves this way, as one has to be very, very careful not to "offend", and I am simply not suited for that type of treading on eggshells which then makes me uncomfortable as a partner in that communication. People have a right to do that, and to judge that everything that does not directly come out of their particular lifestyle "threatens" it, but I personally opt to set my lines somewhat further.

 

Amongst our relatives and some friends down the line there are a few families who like to micromanage things and who are extremely picky as to what they children are exposed to... to the point that they do not allow their children to play with stuffed toys representing or wear clothes portraying non-kosher animals. To the point that their children cannot choose their books from the library when they are small because, well, they have no general public library cards, i.e. nearly every reading is "preplanned" for them or chosen from carefully selected "approved" reading lists which circle in the community. To the point that my children have always played with them supervised, lest they "influence" them, since it was expected that small children cannot always estimate which of their experiences they are allowed to share with friends who live such insular lifestyles, and which not. To the point of censuring even some general education content, let alone literature and films.

 

I always disliked that approach, because even though I, in a way, understand where those people come from, and can appreciate their desire to surround themselves with what they consider worthy things, I still believe that it is bound to end up with a "forbidden fruit syndrome" in many cases. You can only hide the world from your children so much, I believe the better option is acknowledging what exists out there, allow at home some territory for experimentation (better to encounter some things and have a parent to discuss them with than to encounter them secretly on your own and get impressed or confused!) and not blow these stuff out of proportions lest you give them greater importance than they should have in your life, if you decided to set your life without them.

[Nestof3]

Thanks for chiming in on this. I know from experience that we Christians are a varied group. I've been told that our use of birth control (we don't even actually use a specific form, LOL) is the spirit of abortion. I've been told from someone from our old house church that she wouldn't use SOTW because it didn't present the gospel.

 

And, because of some passages in the Old Testament, we did shun reading HP for a long time. It wasn't because I wanted to be better than anyone else. I just didn't want to offend God. I often wrestled with, "Should I allow LOTR? What about Marry Poppins? What about Wizard of Oz? What about Star Wars."

 

Never once did I do any of it so "up" someone. I was honestly trying to be pleasing to God. And, it wasn't an easy thing discerning. It still isn't.

 

We Christians are told to be careful. This is subjective, I realize.

 

I also monitor differently for my children as I do myself. I watch shows I wouldn't hand over to my husband because they affect him differently. I don't want my children reading books about rape, incest, molestation, etc. I believe there is a time for things (and sometimes that time is never). LOL

 

I read all sorts of books in history that explain other belief systems. We just read one about reincarnation. We've read about the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Muslims, etc. We have books with macro evolution.

 

This is very against what many Christians I know do and very expected with many I do know.

 

I try not to make someone feel belittled about their choices, but I also try to keep in line with the iron sharpening iron exhortation. Of course, this is for Christians.

 

It is very difficult to not come across as condemning, because some people feel judged the moment they find out you do something differently. I've felt that as well too. I've been criticized for drinking coffee. Shoot, I've been made fun of because our house was the size of, according to some, a little apartment. These weren't even based on religion at all. No one likes to be made to feel inferior. I've never wanted anyone to feel that way.

 

But, I have had moments where I had to back out of something, and it was weird. I didn't want the people to feel bad, but I didn't want my son playing violent video games with bloodshed, and it was awkward.

 

I know I'm rambling. Sorry :auto:

 

Oh, no, I also don't believe in book-burning. I would never get rid of a library book. I do flip over soft-porn magazines in stores. Cuff me. :lol:

 

Audrey, I think in the part that you bolded on Dawn's quote, she was saying the same thing that you say above in that many Christians don't go as far in censoring their books as Dawn might. She doesn't think that because they are the majority, their practices are any more "correct."

She doesn't want to be mocked or hassled because she goes farther. I don't think she feels she is in the majority.

 

I truly get that. (If I have translated correctly.:tongue_smilie:) Dawn, I think, unfortunately for you, you are always going to get a certain element of surprise and unpleasantness, in part because fundamental Christians are predominantly the most vocal book censors and banners in our culture. They strike fear in the hearts of those of us who genuinely love our books and value our freedom to choose them. We had a thread on this board where more than one member admitted to hiding "objectionable" books in other parts of the library or checking them out and never returning them.

 

Also, Secular mom's point about some people being really surprised at selectivity in reading materials is valid. I grew up in a background and place that left me completely unprepared for many of the more conservative viewpoints on this board. I spent the first year reading posts to my dh and exclaiming, "What!" Dh seldom bats an eye because he grew up in a missionary family with roots in the South. It took me a long time to wrap my mind around some of the viewpoints expressed. It's been good for me.;)

[Nestof3]

I totally disagree.

 

For example, the post about the family who supposedly handed a HP book back to their landlord and left early.

 

That has *nothing* to do with being selective about what their children read and everything to do with some sort of nutty actions on their part. If you don't like a book you found in a cabinet, stash it away until you leave.

 

Let me explain this again. I do not hold to this belief, but I know many Christians who firmly believe in spirits dwelling in places where evil has been. It's sort of like people not wanting to stay in a hotel that is supposedly haunted.

 

These people take it very seriously. To them, they are not being lunatic. They also pray over houses before buying, hotel rooms, etc.

[swimmermom3]

My experience as well. The things you mentioned had me :001_huh: the first time I heard of them. They might as well have told me they believed in the physical incarnation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's how completely alien those ideas are to my experience in Christendom.

 

Our first year of homschooling, I ordered Sonlight's Core 3+4 for American History. There was a book on Native American Prayers or some such title. I thought we were going to learn about various Native American tribes and read some of their spiritual writings or oral traditions.:tongue_smilie: I had no clue we were going to pray for their misguided souls.